Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services!

[StarlightMcKenzie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Woman-has-child-taken-from-her-womb-by-social-services.html

Could there ever be a justifiable reason for this?

I absolutely agree that some local authorities regularly break the law, particularly when dealing with SN. However, i think it is too great a stretch to extrapolate from that that it must be the case that Essex has broken the law here, not least because they will have come under the close scrutiny of experienced judges in at least two different courts, to say nothing of the mother's own lawyers, and they would need the active collusion of both psychiatrists and obstetricians. We are now hearing that the Italian authorities accept that she cannot look after her children, which tends to support the decision to take this child into care.

Warning Daily Mail article

"But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.

I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.

Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.

The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales - four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.

Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.

Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions.

Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million.

This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents.

But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care.

As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.

Critics - including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families - report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.

More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html

Just take a step back, all you conspiracy theorists.

Do you not think that any LA (even poor performing ones) would not be going apeshit at the idea they have to agree to medical grounds before a judge regarding a forced c sectioin?

Every single one of the involved agencies would have been wetting their pants in terror at this. Who needs that kind of shit of their doorsteps? Let alone the poor judge who had to make the decision?

There is no way in hell this was some casual kind of baby snatching/woman abusing exercise.

They would all have been, quite rightly, scared witless at the thought of dealing with this kind of case, but the medical team would have had to be pretty damn convinced this was in the best interests of the mother at that time.

Because it does not go un noticed. As we have seen. And because the LA and the judiciary are silenced by CP laws they cannot put their side of the story. And the doctors cant because it breaks patient confidentiality.

Its a bloody can of worms for EVERYONE involved.

Make no mistake about that.

I think if there had been any legal and humane way to hustle the mum back to Italy they would have leapt at the chance.

You are quoting JH aren't you?

This is his most favourite lie, that millions of pounds have been given to LA to encourage them to steal babies.

This is not true.

I have asked, time and time and time and time again for the proof of this. It is not forthcoming.

As Maryz so eloquently says to have adoption 'targets' for the thousands and thousands of children in care who nobody wants because they are a bit black or a bit male or a bit handicapped.... is absolutely nothing to do with having 'targets' to snatch babies.

Anyone who believes that is, may I say this kindly, not the full shilling.

I repeat this offer on every thread like this, so I will repeat it again. You are welcome to come to court with me and see what happens. I checked with the Bar Council - if the judge and other participants are happy and you promise to keep matters confidential (private NOT secret) there is no objection. You can see just how carefully cases involving the adoption of babies proceed, just how much evidence is heard, just how many chances parents are given. Some would say too much of a chance.

I say it is a very difficult balance to get right.

His second favourite lie is that children can be removed because they 'might' be abused in the future.

As I have pointed out time and time and time and time again this is NOT the law and if I was ever in a case where the Judge or magistrates gave this as their reason, I would have a lovely trip to the Court of Appeal.

Children can only be removed on risk of significant harm, be it physical, sexual or emotional.

IJ and JH would say children should only be removed AFTER they have suffered physical harm and they scoff at emotional abuse.

They are fools.

"You are quoting JH aren't you?"

No it is an article by Sue Reid of the Daily Mail. I don't know who she is but I recently read one of her articles on Diana etc from which I got the impression that she is a senior journalist who has been in the newspaper business for a long time.

Sorry, it had a familiar ring and I would rather pull out my intestines with a fork than give the Daily Mail any clicks, so I made a false assumption.

But that is exactly the kind of thing he does say.

o I do apologise.

She has written lots of articles on Diana, therefore she is clearly a senior journalist of some repute and integrity.

The scales have fallen from my eyes.

Maryz, I do hope JH has stopped trolling the adoption threads?

Wetaugust is very possibly right, that SS, the two hospitals (at least) the health professionals and the Court of Protection cobbled something together in a hurry, hoping no-one would question it.

Spero, it's been widely covered in the nationals. Just look up the Mail, the Telegraph, the Indie, the Times. Why are you disputing that without bothering to check? It is indeed 'all over the press'.

And rightly so, these are crucially important issues fundamental to human dignity, freedom and the rights of the individual. Not least the forced CS, the deprivation of liberty, the seizure of the child, the refusal to return a foreign national child... Whether or not Essex SS, the hospitals and health professionals concerned and the Court of Protection acted correctly (and they may have done, or may not have done), these are issues that a matter of profound public importance.

I have a very dear friend who was sectioned, and despite being recovered, he is still convinced it was his ex-wife's fault.

Yes, but the implication seems to be that younger children are easier to place in adoption, and if there were targets introduced by Blair and New Labour, then that may affect the numbers of young children being removed.

I watched part of a video of Fleming on youtube talking to parents who were seeking help in fighting SS in the courts. Clearly there are people who believe that their children have been removed wrongly as the article by Sue Reid states.

Are you saying that all of those people are wrong?

I would say that the majority of those people are wrong, yes.

The amount of emotional intelligence, cognitive functioning and self reflection needed to admit your failings is really so high that most people will not admit it, but will instead blame the nearest target.

The hardest cases are those involving people with moderate to severe learning difficulties. They clearly love their children, but usually have little or no understanding on how to raise a child safely.

They have baby after baby which are all taken into care at birth. Its heartbreaking for all involved. But SS will have become involved with the first few babies and children at risk, and have to make those kind of decisions. No one likes doing it.

yes, the majority of those people are wrong.

Edam - I made it clear (I thought) that I was basing my assessment on the newspapers today. This was NOT a front page story for any other newspaper than the Mail.

I am afraid that if something is 'all over the internet' I take the view this is not necessarily an endorsement of the sanity of those reporting.

Like I said, if this story features in a big way in the actual newspapers tomorrow, I will eat humble pie. The Daily Mail is not a newspaper. It is a comic with pictures and deliberately inflammatory Katie Hopkins stories to get its internet hits up. It is a master at what it does but anyone who is getting their world view from the Mail is someone who is, to put it mildly, not very questioning of their world.

Sorry he is still trolling. What a bell end.

Sorry Maryz you are going through the mill. But what you are doing is a remarkable thing. I hope you never ever let these poisonous fools spoil what you have done for your children.